1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to a user's interaction with an electronic security system and, more particularly, to a provision which provides the user the ability to signal a central alarm-monitoring station the validity of a protected-premise alarm signal. It is an aspect of the invention that it speeds-up the response time of the authorities as dispatched by the central alarm-monitoring station.
A number of additional features and objects will be apparent in connection with the following discussion of the preferred embodiments and examples with reference to the drawings.
2. Prior Art
When a premise-protecting alarm system trips, it not only begins to ring bells or sirens on the protected premise but also immediately transmits an alarm signal to a central alarm-monitoring station. Briefly, a premise-protecting alarm system comprises a central processing unit (CPU), a network of sensors reporting to the CPU, one or more communications link(s) to the central alarm-monitoring station, and one or more user-interface devices for entering inputs including not only perhaps high-level programming but basic commands such as and without limitation Arming, Disarming, Extending Schedules, Deleting User Codes and so on. A fairly standard user-interface device is a keypad. It typically comprises a cabinet (typically for mounting on a wall), a display, and an array of pushbuttons or keys (for comparison, see, eg., FIG. 1).
As a matter of terminology, the ‘initiating’ cause which causes any of the numerous sensors to (in turn) cause the alarm system to trip is referred to as an “exception.” Not all exceptions are alarm events. Some are accidental trips. To silence the bells or sirens, an authorized user might enter his or her authorizing code (eg., password) and thereby disarm the alarm system. However, the CPU is typically be configured to respond to the alarm system being disarmed within a short grace period by following its earlier-sent alarm signal with a “Cancel Report” signal to the central alarm-monitoring station. This following signal, comprising a cancel instruction, in turn cancels any activity by the central alarm-monitoring station to dispatch the authorities. Again, the CPU sends the cancel instruction automatically, and this might be contrary to the wishes of the authorized user. That is, all that the authorized user may have wanted to do was silence the bells and sirens, then investigate the validity of the initiating cause, concurrently while expecting the authorities to arrive at any second. However, by silencing the bells and sirens, the authorized user had inadvertently canceled the dispatch.
It is typical for alarm systems to be configured such that, when an exception occurs (and an alarm goes off), an alarm signal is transmitted to the central alarm-monitoring station without regard to the accuracy or appropriateness of the alarm signal itself. However, it is an aspect of the prior art that, to date, there is no way for anyone on site—regardless if an authorized user or anyone else—to actually signal the central alarm-monitoring station through the alarm system's communication link(s) a confirmation signal (or alternatively a verify or authentication signal) of the alarm in a pro-active manner. That is, if an alarm goes off—and someone on site has knowledge or belief that the authorities need to be dispatched right away—then that person has no means through use of the keypad to signal the central alarm-monitoring station such a verify or authentication signal.
The current prior-art practice only allows for authorized users or other persons on premise to await contact from the central alarm-monitoring station, usually by a phone call to the premise (or else to someone who is designated as a “Key Holder” or person responsible for the premise).
At the point of contact, the central station's operator will ask the person, who may or may not be aware of any such initial alarm, if there is an exception or difficulty or other issue that should cause the alarm to transmit. If the contacted-person does not confirm the validity of the original alarm, or if the contacted-person does not happen to have specific knowledge of the initiating alarm, the central station will most likely abort or not dispatch the alarm to the proper authorities (sometimes based on a prearranged policy or wishes of the premise owners) . . . calling the incident a “False Alarm”.
In some cases certain central stations have started to enact what is called “two-call verification.” In two-call verification, the process is simply repeated twice completely from the beginning, to verify the initiating alarm signal is valid. All of this process can take from 3-15 minutes or longer. Thus this process delays the most critical types of alarm signals, the ones that occur when a valid user is on the premise and has the ability to verify immediately the validity of the alarm AND authenticate themselves as an authorized user by entry of an authorized code.
What is needed is an improvement to overcome the shortcomings of the prior art.